Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

I have always been given the impression that most cases getting cut with a sword (as opposed to a small knife) usually means you are going to die anyways.

Well, there is that.

But, seriously, I think his point was more about getting over the fear of being cut. I've watched people trying to execute weapons take-aways over and over and the biggest mistake I've seen is overavoidance. Either moving too far (allowing a very fast follow-up attack) or moving too soon (allowing the attack to be changed). Second is the moving too late which appears - in most cases I've witnessed - to be motivated by fear, just like the overavoidance. It almost seems to be overcompenstation for a tendency to overavoid.

What's more, in my own practice the most common criticism I hear is - yep, you guessed it - overavoidance. And what's it motivated by? Yep, fear.

You don't have a lot of room for mistakes when faced with a blade (none, really). And that fear seems to be a huge source for mistakes. So getting used to the idea that being cut is not necessarily the end of the encounter and being afraid of being cut can get you killed is - in my mind - an important aspect of being able to successfully deal with a knife (or sword) attack.

Mind you, the cases where I definitely know someone defended themselves against a knife attack they didn't, in fact, get cut. Although, in the one case the attacker suffered first a broken arm, then (when he picked up the knife in the other hand and attacked again) a fatal stab wound to the kidney.

Which is the other half of the cautionary tale: if you're going to use a weapon, make sure it can't be used against you.

Re: What technique would you apply to neutralize Brazilian Jujitsu attacker

Quote:

Don Magee wrote:

This makes me think of the mechanics of modern day knife attacks vs battlefield weapon attacks. I'd say these weapons defenses then (at least knife defenses) are from an era that has passed by. To know your attacker has a knife is probably an exception and not a rule to knife attacks.

You know, I'd have to agree with this at least in principle. I know of "exceptions", but I also know that some of the scariest incidents I've been involved with involved attackers who were theoretically unarmed. Because the environment we were in had safeguards against them being armed. But it occured to me that those very safeguards pretty much meant that if they had a knife I wouldn't know about it until it was too late.

Most of these people I trusted. But there were exceptions.

Then, a couple of years later a gun materialized on the person of one of these "unarmed" people. It had gotten past the safeguards.

I keep trying to convince myself that the knife I see doesn't scare me, the one I don't see does. Truth is, they both scare me.

While the article makes a good point and I agree you should never assume anything. I find it funny that he does not touch on the fact the he himself assumed Donny would not kill him. He assumed his attacker would be of a sport match mindset. While warning us about assumptions, he made and hedged his bets on his very own.

Believe that's what the article was about if you want, but I think the point is that there are always assumptions and it is better to be aware of them.

I assume the "he" above means Takamura not Threadgill. I think it is interesting that you are assuming what Tak's assumptions were. We don't know what Tak held in his mind, but given my distant impression of the man, Donny had no idea who he was playing with or what field he was playing on.

And isn't that the essence of winning? "If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles." Sun Tsu

Believe that's what the article was about if you want, but I think the point is that there are always assumptions and it is better to be aware of them.

I assume the "he" above means Takamura not Threadgill. I think it is interesting that you are assuming what Tak's assumptions were. We don't know what Tak held in his mind, but given my distant impression of the man, Donny had no idea who he was playing with or what field he was playing on.

And isn't that the essence of winning? "If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles." Sun Tsu

In that case, I'd play it more to luck then knowing. Anyone willing to engage in a fight like that is lucky to survive. The fact is he is damming Donny for using his assumptions, but he used the same assumptions to win the fight. (I'm going to fight 'dirty' and he wont because he thinks this is a sport.) Had Donny pulled a knife and gutted him, this story would of read a different way. Possibly used as an example of poor form in a challenge match by the author.

This is why I tell people there are two kinds of challenge fights.

Fights in the ring with rules. - These are healthy and safe ways to test skill and technique.

Challenge fights without the discussion of rules where one person is trying to prove something to another. - If you find yourself in this situation, both parties have made very grave and poor judgment calls. If a fight does happen, you must assume your opponent wants to kill you and you act as if this is the case. If you are smart you will realize you are being an idiot and simply leave the dojo and never deal with that person again. Anyone willing to fight without the safety of rules is simply too unstable to trust with your personal safety during instruction.

Further more, the lesson taught in my opinion did nothing to correct the students assertion. In fact it validated it. He stated the technique was outdated and unable to deal with the technique of today. The teacher showed no technique simply showed resourcefulness that in reality anyone could do with no training at all. This pointed out a lack in the students technique, but did not show the strength of the instructors technique. Nor does it validate the training methods. It would be similar to the teacher agreeing to the fight, pulling a handgun out, shooting Donny then stating his jiujitsu was superior. Unless he taught shoestring strangle from under the mount kata, he allowed him self to be bested, or was bested to make a point that did not address the students concerns. That combined challenging a student instead of just asking someone that disrespectful to leave really shows poor form.

I have never heard of this behavior in sport classes. I find it unhealthy.

I think the story does a good job of expressing a point, though -- that assumptions differ considerably between traditional and sport martial arts.

I agree with you, though, Don, that this would be poor evidence that Takamura's jujutsu skills (or his capacities as a fighter in general) were superior. If he'd stood up and said, "And so you see, I defeated him with greater skill", I'd strongly disagree. Heck, the only "proper" jujutsu demonstrated was a takedown, a transition into mount, and so on -- all by the challenger. Any conclusions about the relative ability, wit, determination, or whatever of the two individuals would be improper, because this was not a good test of ability, or even resourcefulness.

But while it tells us little about the two individuals, it does highlight a difference in their backgrounds. From a sport perspective, this is unfair -- one point of sport competition is to honestly evaluate particular skills through a balanced match -- similar age, weight, equipment, and so on. From a traditional perspective, all of these are variables.

That's not to say that a TMAer would be -better- at dealing with things like a suddenly-introduced weapon than an MMAer; in fact, there's a good case to be made for the opposite.

I'll add that I think you're free to call some wankerism on Takamura's part. It's just that I give him some slack because said wankerism did at least make an interesting point. (If I were the one who'd been choked out, maybe I'd have a stronger negative bias.)

As for the technical side...it might also reinforce one of the contentions going around in this thread, which is that aikido and traditional jujutsu have more of a notion of two combatants who might have weapons on them (or on the ground near them or whatever), even if they don't start out wielding them.

After all, if one person has a weapon drawn and ready before the other person closes range, the other person (regardless of what they know) is pretty much screwed unless they can get ahold of something equivalent -- so much so that I doubt classical martial systems have much to say about the topic, except maybe as an interesting abstract exercise. And if they both have weapons out, we're not really talking about jujutsu anymore -- the closest thing would be some form of grappling with paired weapons, like, say, a shoulder ram from crossed blades.

We might even talk about aikido suwari-waza and such in this way; positions that do not offer nearly as much durable control as BJJ positions where you position your base above the opponent, but rather expose you less to potential weapon attacks. (Similarly: positions that are not very good for applying a fight-ending submission, but are fine for getting space to deploy a weapon, or to a lesser degree perhaps throw a few fight-ending unarmed blows -- todome waza.)

I agree the story does a good job of making a point. I just don't think the lesson answered the challenge of Donny in that story. I just wanted to point out the comedy of the winner who made the same assumption being used as an example of how making assumptions can cause you to lose. They both hedge their bets with assumptions and luck played it's part, not skill.

I don't think the match was unfair at all, because no rules were discussed. I think they are both idiots for choosing to fight without a discussion of rules.

"a martial art that has no rules is nothing but violence" - Kenji Tomiki

Against my better judgement as you seem bent on projecting ideas onto Takamura that I don't think are justified I'll take issue with just one thing.

Quote:

I just wanted to point out the comedy of the winner who made the same assumption being used as an example of how making assumptions can cause you to lose. They both hedge their bets with assumptions and luck played it's part, not skill.

and

Quote:

Had Donny pulled a knife and gutted him, this story would of read a different way.

I don't believe Takamura assumed any such thing in regard to Donny. I think that the possibility that Donny would not fight fair would have been very much a possibility in Takamura's mind. One of the points is that Takamura was playing a much more serious "game" than Donny and the fact that Donny didn't realize this even in light of the subject of the class was the surest indication of his downfall. The fact that Donny fell willfully into the trap laid for him and that the matching was so uneven allowed Takamura to deliver such a clear lesson.

So the lesson is there and it is up to the individual to extract benefit from that lesson or not.

In the end we do agree because it is lessons such as these that underscore the importance of good manners and harmonious existence. The martial arts illustrate the consequences of violence and it is plain good sense to avoid same.

Hello chris
I believe you understood that my tack was to show the relation with the sword and open hand not to say that is the best way to fight empty handed.
And I understand that you propose that it is not really applicable. You have a very valid point but you have as well a wrong assumption.

You see coming close with headlock, body lock, arm lock or throw is a very valid way of fencing (i.e. fighting with using weapons).
In fact all 15th century treatise I know of, consider getting close and wrestling a integral part of using a weapon and the manuals tells how to deal with it or to get to, with and without armour on foot and on horse.
Basically having a weapon does not prohibit close contact wrestling at all.
Fighting with a weapon is full of taking short cut and taking corners even accepting a slice or a small cut to the hand (or a even a thrust through the tight is you practise Scottish small sword……).
I understand that wrestling when both weapons have is not that common in koryu. So other than the body variation of the kumitachi it is quite hard to be exposed to that in aikido or in JMA in general (I think it exist ion some koryu, the bit we do in kumitachi has to come from somewhere).

So this is really where my disagreement why you analysis lay, however on the same vein you as making a very good point.

As you said specialised open hand fighting will have that built in the same way fencing as it regarding fencing. And so if you take fencing approach to open hand you will not have that or at least to the same extend.
One could argue that it is possible to optimise the open hand side of a sword based (and I think that it is what aikido is). But I would agree with you in saying that it can not really be optimised to extend of a dedicated hand to hand method designed for facing hand to hands.
That being said, the sword base hand method can be made good enough.

phil

One Ringeck to bring them all and in darkness bind them,
In the Land of Windsor where phlip phlop live.

Hello
Chris and Don comments made me realise something. May be what we consider what aikido is differently.

Chris talked about, head and body lock, and I a was about tp reply that we do defend against those in aikido but I think that may be there is an another differentiation in what we respectively thing aikido covers.

Yesterday we did knife defence with a bit of resistance
In one occurrence the technique was so that you ended on the omote side of uke
You grab his wrist with on hand and with the other you go around the neck from behind (ie you hand ends upon the front
You the drop on one knee (the outside one being up) and the arm bar the arm on the knee the extension of the arm is maintained by pulling the head away
(I hoped you see the one I mean)
Because we where resting and that you can not really fall with uke full ballast on you knee. Sometimes uke could prevent/resist the rotation of his arm on the knee (basically that could become a sticky point and we could loses our advantage) and so we ended chocking him instead still controlling the arms.

And for me that is still aikido, the choke being just a different way to finish the technique, but may be some would consider that outside the aikido scope?

phil
Ps (is that high jacking this thread, should we start a new one?)

One Ringeck to bring them all and in darkness bind them,
In the Land of Windsor where phlip phlop live.

Phil, I don't know if we are having a communication problem, but I still don't see where we disagree. I too believe that wrestling with weapons is an integral part of weapon training.

I don't think that Headlocks and body locks are outside of the scope of what Aikido could be, I just think they are out side of the scope of it's traditional syllabus. I've never seen footage of, or heard a story of O-sensei teaching headlock or body lock escapes. I don't see them listed on the hombu list of techniques for testing.

Those techniques are great unarmed techniques in my opinion, but they just make poor controls for an armed man. In other words if I were making an armed system I would leave them out.

However a close relative that we have in our system is ushiro kubishimi. Interesting thing about Kubishimi is that it's a choke with a wrist grab. Why do you think that wrist grab is in there...

Phil, I don't know if we are having a communication problem, but I still don't see where we disagree. I too believe that wrestling with weapons is an integral part of weapon training.

I don't think that Headlocks and body locks are outside of the scope of what Aikido could be, I just think they are out side of the scope of it's traditional syllabus. I've never seen footage of, or heard a story of O-sensei teaching headlock or body lock escapes. I don't see them listed on the hombu list of techniques for testing.

Those techniques are great unarmed techniques in my opinion, but they just make poor controls for an armed man. In other words if I were making an armed system I would leave them out.

However a close relative that we have in our system is ushiro kubishimi. Interesting thing about Kubishimi is that it's a choke with a wrist grab. Why do you think that wrist grab is in there...

Although there are hundreds of photographs in this series, the groupings have been lost so we lack context for individual frames. It is very difficult to draw conclusions about individual poses and there were no written descriptions of what is being portrayed. Therefore it is very easy to project all sorts of interpretation onto this series of photographs.

hello, chris
Sorry it seems that I managed to find a hidden meaning to what you wrote (but that what happens when we are separated by a common language) :-)

About the body lock, head lock and even wrist lock in fencing (provided that what I call lock is what you call lock), I was wondering why they consistently appear in 15th fencing? Manuals. After all we are talking of a 80 to 100cm blade, with a pommel and Quillons designed to strike.

And the answer came from sparing. (Hence my liking of pressure testing, cross training and sparing when it is possible)
And it is not unlike shooter from MMA and open hand.
To be fair those hold do no last very long as they are there to set up a throw, then there will be some form a control/pin to set the point and thrust But conceptually, I do not find it very different of shoot, throw, mount and pound. (But it may not be what you call a body lock or ahead lock per se)
When we tried that situation, we did not feel that the cut that I was delivering would have been fatal, crippling or debilitating. I am not sure that they would have draw blood with medieval clothing on. (Not armour but stonger than a modern T shirt). And it took to much time form to do something meaningful with my tip (and he could always control my sword hand arm long enough to "kill" me before I could get into position)

To paraphrase Don, even a sword is not that useful from a dominated position… (I think a dagger/wakisahi is probably the weapon that would make ground and pound very unhealthy)

I mean we can use the sword to stop push-cut (or pull-cut) them and it works against people that shoot from to far, commit too much in the blade clearance, or that you are ready for. but if the guy is a good shooter (and as a blade as well) he will probably get through. (If only on the ground that he will only shoot when he has a good opportunity and I do not have a good opportunity to defend.)

I hope that does make sense.
Phil

Last edited by philippe willaume : 07-13-2007 at 11:45 AM.

One Ringeck to bring them all and in darkness bind them,
In the Land of Windsor where phlip phlop live.

I don't think that Headlocks and body locks are outside of the scope of what Aikido could be, I just think they are out side of the scope of it's traditional syllabus. I've never seen footage of, or heard a story of O-sensei teaching headlock or body lock escapes. I don't see them listed on the hombu list of techniques for testing.
......
However a close relative that we have in our system is ushiro kubishimi. Interesting thing about Kubishimi is that it's a choke with a wrist grab. Why do you think that wrist grab is in there...

yes we do have ushiro kubishimi in our formal system as well.
phil....

One Ringeck to bring them all and in darkness bind them,
In the Land of Windsor where phlip phlop live.

Although there are hundreds of photographs in this series, the groupings have been lost so we lack context for individual frames. It is very difficult to draw conclusions about individual poses and there were no written descriptions of what is being portrayed. Therefore it is very easy to project all sorts of interpretation onto this series of photographs.

I'd like to know more about this. Is there anywhere I can see more of the pictures in context?

I don't think they have ever been published beyond what is reproduced in Steven's translation of Budo. There are some series assembled by Stevens according to his ideas of what might be some plausable sequences.

I know Stan Pranin has made capies of the entire set, but without an organization there is little use publishing them.

Another factor is that they date to the 30s so one would need to be familiar with the Daito ryu/aikido hybrid that Ueshiba was doing at the time. Kowing DR or modern aikido might not be enough.

Agreed. I myself am VERY curious about what Ueshiba himself actually practiced.

I don't think it is that much of a mystery. We have Tomiki, Shioda, and Saito sensei (who are pretty well documented and have published materials available) as well as two illustrated texts (Budo Renshu and Budo) that give a pretty good indication of the content and focus of that era of aikido when Ueshiba oversaw training. Couple that with video and text records of DR's Hiden Mokuroku and a pretty clear picture is possible at least academically.

As for the viability of publishing the Noma photos, I don't think idle curiosity would be enough to make it economically viable.

Out of curiosity I pulled down my copy of Budo and it has 50+ pages of Noma photos with an average of 5-6 per page. That should be plenty to satisfy the curiosity of most. Moreover it's only $17 new and it can often be found discounted for half that. Really no excuse for not owning a copy.

I know that I am only a beginner but from the three moves that i have learned so far (one of which is made to knock some one out) , they all work very effectively weather the person has a weapon or not. Say someone is punching you....u treat that just like someone is stabbing at you with knife. You can catch the throw, twist their arm and have complete control of the person...its just very basic.